Friday, December 8, 2017

Follow up to the evaluation of the Microsoft Surface Studio in a classroom system

At Utah State University, we have placed Surface Studios in classroom systems over the past few months, currently with around 38 units installed. Faculty response has been positive, with users commenting on the ease of use and responsiveness of the pen interface.
Another aspect
In my initial evaluation, I mentioned the challenges encountered with using an external display with the Studio, considering its unusual 3:2 aspect ratio. The most common display aspect ratio in our classroom systems, whether projector or flatscreen, is 16x9. Using the 3:2 Surface Studio in the classroom system requires allowing the external display to pillarbox if the Surface is set to its native 4500 x 3000 resolution, or setting the Surface to a lower resolution with a 16x9 aspect ratio and allowing the internal display to letterbox.
Choices
The video driver for Studio makes available only one choice for a resolution using the native 3:2 aspect ratio, 4500 x 3000. Neither this resolution nor aspect ratio is supported on any standard display. This means when mirroring the desktop to an external display, you must either externally scale the image or set the Surface internal display to a lower resolution setting which doesn't match the native aspect ratio. Most classroom systems on our campus support a 16x9 aspect ratio at 1920 x 1080, so a double issue with the surface - we must scale the video so it does not exceed 1920 x 1080 and we must stretch, squeeze, or somehow manipulate the aspect ratio or live with an image that won't fill the screen. Stretching the image can be problematic, circles become ovals and the display can look unnatural and sharpness suffers.
Scaling and manipulating
First adjusting the resolution to a manageable value, we could use a scaler to reduce the 4500 x 3000 resolution to 1920 x 1080, but we use mostly Crestron devices, which will scale up to 4096 x 2160, but not quite 4500 x 3000. With no other resolutions available from the Surface at the 3:2 aspect ratio, it was time to try to create a custom setting. Using a freeware utility, I created new settings for the Surface and wrote the settings into the EDID table in the Surface's Windows registry. Now the Surface has an additional setting available: 1800 x 1200.
Minimal distortion
Our Crestron devices can scale 1800 x 1200 to either our standard 1920 x 1080 - 16:9 setting, or 1920 x 1200 - 16:10, which is less common for us but is actually the native resolution of our standard projectors. Our best solution would be an external display with a 5k resolution and a 3:2 aspect ratio, but short of building a custom LED wall that just isn't available. The custom LED display is a bit pricey for a classroom.
Scaling to 1920 x 1080 works but will slightly pillarbox on our Sony projectors. Setting the Surface Studio to 1800 x 1200 and the scaler to 1920 x 1200 to match the projector’s native resolution produced the best results in our testing. The surface display is fullscreen, and the external display matches with minimal distortion since the image is only stretched 120 pixels side to side.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Crestron Avia DSP - review update

Crestron released an update to the Avia DSP this week, adding some much needed improvements:

- Avia Audio Tool now supports export of Simpl joins for any control with a new symbol export feature- now i can have that crosspoint mute and level control I griped about in my initial review.
- You can now copy parameters from one DSP object or strip to another. Control C and Control V support still coming, I hope.
- And, Aux in/out have been renamed to Send and Return. Now it makes more sense to grumpy audio guys!




Make sure and update the Avia Tool, Simpl Windows, and the device and Crestron databases to take advantage of the new symbol export feature.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Crestron Avia DSP first impressions



Crestron Avia DSP


At Utah State University we typically use audio DSP devices in distance learning capable classrooms. We have experience with a variety of these devices, and have an install base of more than 150 Cisco codec equipped classrooms on our main campus and across the state at satellite campuses and learning centers. Over time, we have deployed devices from a variety of manufacturers – Polycom Vortex, Biamp Nexia, and BSS Soundweb. 
We rely heavily on Crestron control and video switching in our installations, and so were very interested in the new Crestron Avia DSP. We have installed a handful of these DSP’s in rooms on our main campus as part of a recent classroom technology upgrade. One installation provides the audio mixing and routing for a distance learning classroom equipped with a Cisco SX-80, Crestron processor, Crestron video routing and Shure steerable ceiling array microphones.


Hardware

For this installation we used the DSP-1283, a single rack unit box with 12 analog in, 8 analog out, 32 channels of Dante, SIP/POTS telephone I/O, 2 channels of USB I/O, and 8 internal ’Aux’ busses (more on those later), and AEC. The chassis has front panel bargraph meters for the analog inputs and outputs. Our room audio sources are a wireless instructor lavalier, two Shure MXA910 ceiling arrays, and line inputs from room media sources. Outputs feed the Cisco codec microphone input, presentation content line in, PC audio in for lecture capture, and two stereo amplifiers for 4 speaker channels. The Avia devices are fixed architecture DSP’s The processing blocks are preassigned to channel strips and analog outputs, and the processing objects are available on the analog I/O and aux bus inputs only.

Performance according to published specs is good, with 24-bit A to D, 110 db dynamic range, Equivalent input noise of -125db, and an input gain range of 66db which exceeds the available input gain of 48db on the BSS devices and could be helpful in some situations.


Setup

Network setup was simple. In our operation, we run all devices in DHCP, but use our enterprise network management tool to assign static IP addresses where needed, and we assign all Crestron devices to their own VLan. Because this DSP has a Dante interface, it has a second MAC address , and requires a second IP address for the Dante network. The software tool has device discovery, or you can manually input IP addresses for communication across subnets.


Software

For Crestron users who will tie this into a control system, the devices’ Crestron net ID (IPID) is set in Toolbox, but all other configuration is accomplished through the stand-alone application - Crestron Avia Tool which installs in your Toolbox folder if you have installed other Crestron software.

There are a few nagging issues in the user interface, undoubtedly most can be attributed to the fact that this is a new product.

The interface has a single main view, but separate signal and system view tabs.
In System View input and output meters are available, crosspoints can be muted, and levels viewed for each crosspoint by hovering the mouse. A double click will mute a crosspoint, but the crosspoint levels may not be adjusted. This view also shows a list of available devices.
Signal view allows adjustment of crosspoint levels and mutes. A single click brings up a numerical db level display with up/down level adjustment arrows, or a right click brings up a slider with copy, paste, undo and crosspoint mute buttons. Here you can copy your level settings and paste to another crosspoint, but this requires you to open the destination crosspoint with another right click, and select the paste button. Windows shortcut keys (CNTRL C, CNTRL V) do not work, and levels may not be pasted to a range of destinations at once.

Channel names are visible on a toggle, but toggling the name view on in the system view does not make them visible in other views, you must also turn them on in signal view if you want them to remain visible as you change views
Input and output rows  are numbered, but crosspoint columns are not numbered. A small complaint, but you must either count across or hover the mouse to check the output crosspoint number
Open the help file, and the window opens and stays in focus – you must close it again before working on whatever you needed the help for in the first place

Beware of the dual input mutes – analog inputs have an input gain module with its own mute. This is separate from the channel mute, and is visible in the system view, but not the signal view unless you open the channel’s input gain block.

A potentially large issue with the fixed architecture - full DSP blocks are available on only the 12 input channels. This device has 32 channels of Dante available, but it is only matrixed. A Dante input must be assigned to one of the 12 channel strips for full DSP features to be available. It is important to be aware of this as you design your system, this device is limited to 12 input channels and 8 output channels for anything other than simple routing and level control. Other flexible architecture DSP’s we have used do not have this limitation, allowing processing of up to 64 channels of Dante without adding additional boxes. A large system using one of these other devices could be considerably less expensive than the multiple Avia boxes that would be needed for a similar channel count.

Finally, the Aux busses. A bit of an odd feature as implemented. These are not your mother’s aux busses. They do not function as an audio engineer would expect an aux to operate. There are 8 aux sends which seem to be intended to be used as group submasters. Auxes, labeled as Inputs and Outputs are internally bussed, output tied to input, almost like an insert loop or an aux buss brought back to input strip. Signal can be sent from any channel strip or Dante input to an aux bus. The signal then routes automatically to the corresponding aux in. The aux in strips have DSP available and the matrix allows routing with level and mute control to any output, so this does allow a way to expand processing capacity and grouping and processing of input channels.


Crestron interface

Arguably the biggest reason to choose these devices is the integration with other Crestron hardware. Crestron has developed a neat UI export tool which will create touchpanel smart graphics objects automatically, which can then be added to your touchpanel project. These objects can communicate directly to the DSP while adding only minimal support in a Simpl program.*
In Simpl windows, the default control symbols for the Avia DSP’s are fairly complete, but missing crosspoint level or mute controls.


Bottom line

Good integration with Crestron, and very usable in a smaller installation. The advantages in a system exceeding 12 analog inputs or requiring multiple channels of Dante are not as great. Software is a good first implementation, and I eagerly await updates for some needed improvements. Cost on these devices ranges from $2000 to $4000 list, and seems reasonable, especially when the benefits of the Crestron integration features are factored in.


*Updated after more time to test with the box - Simpl integration requires the import of one module to carry CRPC data. On program initialization, communication is established between the touchpanel and the DSP, requiring no further processing in the system program. Also, controls created in the UI export tool are used in the VTPro-e project but do not produce a custom module for use in the Simpl program. Did I mention crosspoint level and mute contol is needed in Simpl?
Hey, I love the meters, though...

Friday, May 12, 2017

4K Display in Classrooms



Flatscreens vs Projectors

Ever since Ben Franklin trashed his 12 inch black-and white TV in favor of a shiny new color VGA monitor, classroom technology has run towards the ever-receding caboose of the display size and resolution train. At USU, we have enjoyed the chase, taking advantage of falling prices and increasing display sizes to stretch our AV budget, often favoring flatscreens over projectors as the price to size ratio of these displays seemed to be following its own Moore’s Law.

Where resolution, size and viewing distance were appropriate, flatscreens could offer a better value. Superior brightness, contrast ratio, viewing angle, ease of installation, and lower maintenance costs made them an excellent choice for smaller classrooms and conference rooms. We have always been conscious of sizing displays correctly for the needs of the space and the intended use. Using a visual acuity calculator and specs based on SMPTE standards provided us a reference point to design our spaces for the best student experience. Now, the new Infocomm/ANSI standard - ANSI/INFOCOMM V202.01:2016, Display Image Size for 2D Content in Audiovisual Systems provides greater accuracy for image sizing based on the intended use.

More Resolution and bigger TV’s

Simple calculations can provide a helpful guide, and can show the optimum viewing distance for displays of varying sizes and resolutions even without doing the additional calculations in the Infocomm standard. We assume in most classrooms that the intended use will often require what the Infocomm standard refers to as ‘Analytical Decision Making’ which suggests among other things, high resolution. Typically in our usage cases this resolution is 1080p since that is the native resolution of common display technologies we purchase, and until the advent of consumer 4k TV’s the best we could do with the available budget. Consumer 4k TV’s are now available to us at roughly the same cost we would purchase a 1080p set only a year or so ago, also, just try and find a good quality 1080p LED TV. Freight-car loads have been left corroding on that rail siding, a couple of miles back. 

Is 4k necessary?

New 4K displays often have better contrast and color performance than their now-sidelined 1080p siblings. Unfortunately, 4k resolution itself is not especially useful in a typical classroom. The optimal viewing distance for a 75 inch 1080p image is around 10 feet. At any distance greater than this, a person with 20/20 vision will not see the full benefit of this resolution. For a 2160p image om the same size display, the optimal viewing distance is inside 5 feet. TV’s larger than 85 inches become costly. Affordable 4k projection will obviously make much larger image sizes possible, even so our largest recent installation was a 208 inch screen. At around 15 feet wide and 8 and a half feet high, full benefit of 2160p would only be visible to a viewer closer than 13 and a half feet, whereas our 1080p installation’s full resolution is usable to nearly 30 feet.

A well-designed 1080p-capable system will likely continue to provide us with the most usable images in our classrooms for a while. Improvements in contrast ratio and color will make our classrooms better, but higher resolutions, whether 4k, 8k, or beyond will not make much difference.

Until we can install eye upgrades…

image from www.carltonbale.com      http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html